TC 


$B   ^ 


o 


GIFT   OF 


PJOJXBQ 


OTTT 
MAR  29 


FROM    THE    PRESIDENT'S    OFFICE 
TO  THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 


EDITORIAL 
OPINIONS 

ON  FLOOD  CONTROL 
AND   RECLAMATION 

WITH  REFERENCE  TO 

SUTTER  BASIN 
PROJECT 


The  articles  reproduced  here- 
with are  editorials  from  the 
daily  press  of  Sacramento,  the 
editors  of  which  made  thorough 
personal  investigation  of  the 
situation  now  attracting  the 
attention  of  the  California  Leg- 
islature, the  State  Reclamation 
Board,  and  others  interested  in 
flood  control  and  reclamation 
problems  established  by  the  Cal- 
ifornia Debris  Commission. 


(Sacramento    Union,    March    8,    1915.) 

Big  Reclamation  Problem 


The  controversy  over  the  Sutter 
by-pass,  which  has  aroused  much 
bitterness  in  Sutter  county  and  has 
provoked  to  harsh  language  the 
opponents  of  the  completion  of  the 
proposed  flood  control  system  along 
the  lines  laid  down  by  the  State 
Reclamation  Board,  will  be  one  of 
the  matters  which  the  lawmakers 
who  reconvene  today  must  finally 
settle. 

The  flood  problem  is  the  great 
question  of  the  entire  northern  part 
of  the  State.  Private  attempts  to  find 
a  solution  of  this  problem  cannot 
succeed.  A  million  acres  of  fertile 
land  are  useless  because  of  the  win- 
ter floods. 

Haphazard  methods  have  ruled  in 
this  work  for  nearly  half  a  century 
and  the  situation  has  been  only  ag- 
gravated. Under  the  system  of  recla- 
mation that  has  grown  up  every  man 
is  building  against  every  other  man. 

Big  levees  are  built  to  overtop  little 
levees  and  then  still  larger  levees 
are  constructed  by  other  reclaimers. 

No  account  has  been  taken  of  the 
fact  that  the  flood  waters  must  get 
to  the  bay  by  some  means  and  along 
some  route.  Every  land  owner  nat- 
urally says :  "You  can't  turn  the 
flood  waters  on  me."  No  one  wants 
to  convert  his  property  into  a  water- 
way to  please  his  neighbor. 

The  system  devised  by  the  United 
States  and  State  engineers  and  em- 
bodied in  the  flood  control  plan  of 
the  Debris  Commission  is  the  first 
attempt  to  treat  this  problem  as  a 
whole.  It  takes  into  consideration 
the  needs  of  navigation.  It  proposes 
a  plan  to  care  for  all  the  flood  waters 
of  the  Sacramento  Valley. 

The  people  of  Sutter  County  assert 
that  they  are  in  thorough  sympathy 
with  the  proposed  flood  control  sys- 
tem. But  they  declare  that  in  locat- 
ing the  proposed  by-pass  along  the 
eastern  rim  of  the  Sutter  Basin  the 


engineers  menace  the  orchards  and 
homes  of  thousands  of  farmers  who 
are  now  behind  their  own  levees. 
They  have  said  in  their  resolutions 
that  they  object  to  the  cost  of  the 
proposed  work. 

The  State  engineers  contend  that 
the  proposed  route  for  the  by-pass 
through  the  center  of  the  basin  as 
indicated  in  the  Debris  Commis- 
sion's report  is  inferior  to  the  east- 
ern location  from  an  engineering 
standpoint  because  of  the  depth  of 
the  center  depression. 

Furthermore,  the  engineers  say 
that  whether  the  by-pass  follows  the 
central  or  the  eastern  route,  the  cost 
will  be  levied  on  the  same  land.  In 
other  words,  it  makes  no  difference 
which  route  is  followed  so  far  as  the 
cost  to  the  farmers  is  concerned. 
The  assessment  will  be  determined 
by  the  assessors  of  the  Reclamation 
Board. 

The  vital  thing  for  the  State  of 
California  is  the  completion  of  the 
flood  control  system  so  that  it  will  re- 
claim the  largest  amount  of  land  and 
do  the  minimum  amount  of  harm. 

No  one  desires  to  see  flourishing 
orchards  flooded.  No  one  cares  to 
witness  the  destruction  of  farms  in 
order  that  other  farms  may  be 
created. 

But  certainly  it  is  not  to  the  inter- 
est of  the  State  to  permit  the  fears 
of  the  people  of  one  section  to  pre- 
vent the  completion  of  a  great  sys- 
tem of  flood  control  which  aims  to 
bring  into  cultivation  great  tracts  of 
land  now  useless,  and  which  has 
been  designed  by  engineers  after 
years  of  study. 

Some  solution  of  the  question 
should  be  found  which  will  remove 
it  from  local  prejudice.  The  law- 
makers should  provide  means  for 
the  completion  of  the  by-pass  sys- 
tem without  constant  and  apparently 
endless  litigation.  Some  machinery 
should  be  provided  to  facilitate  the 
work  in  the  interests  of  the  greatest 
good  to  the  greatest  number. 


3932fiO 


(Sacramento    Union,    March   9,    1915.) 

Some  Fads  on  By-Pass  Plan 


There  seems  to  be  much  misinfor- 
mation abroad  concerning  the  flood 
control  system  officially  adopted  by 
the  State  nearly  two  years  ago  after 
the  report  of  the  California  Debris 
Commission  was  made. 

The  people,  particularly  the  owners 
of  land  in  and  around  the  flood  dis- 
trict, should  remember  that  the  cost 
of  the  by-pass  system  will  be  placed 
against  all  the  land  benefited,  re- 
gardless of  the  location  of  the 
waterways. 

The  by-pass  is  not  a  levee  system 
in  the  old  sense  that  it  is  a  barricade 
against  water.  On  the  contrary,  it 
is  an  artificial  drainage  channel. 

As  Engineer  Bailey  states  it,  "A 
by-pass  is  two  levees  and  the  land 
that  lies  between  them." 

While  the  promoters  of  a  reclama- 
tion district  may  advance  for  their 
own  advantage  the  money  for  the 
construction  of  the  by-pass  levees  or 
part  of  them,  they  will  be  reimbursed 
by  assessments  laid  on  all  the  land 
which  the  reclamation  engineers  find 
to  have  been  benefited  by  the  work. 

The  tax  will  vary  in  proportion  to 
the  amount  of  benefit  derived  from 
the  drainage  system.  Naturally  the 
low  land  which  would  have  been  un- 
der water  for  a  great  part  of  the 
year  will  pay  the  heaviest  tax.  High 
land  which  is  comparatively  safe 
from  flood  will  pay  only  a  nominal 
tax. 

The  Sutter  Basin  Company  would 
pay  the  same  amount  no  matter 


whether  the  by-pass  runs  through 
the  center  of  their  property  or  down 
the  west  side  of  the  Sacramento 
River.  The  same  is  true  of  every 
other  foot  of  land  in  the  region  af- 
fected by  the  drainage  system. 

It  will  not  save  the  farmers  of  Sut- 
ter County  one  cent  to  move  the  by- 
pass ten,  twenty  or  fifty  miles  to  the 
west,  if  their  land  comes  within  the 
area  benefited  by  the  waterway.  The 
only  measure  of  the  tax  is  the 
amount  of  benefit  derived. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  contention 
of  some  that  it  is  not  the  principle 
of  the  by-pass  system  but  the  spe- 
cific location  of  the  Sutter  by-pass 
that  causes  opposition  is  not  well 
founded. 

If  it  will  be  confiscation  of  the 
farmers'  lands  to  build  the  proposed 
by-pass  along  the  eastern  route,  then 
the  construction  along  the  central  or 
any  other  route  will  be  equally  con- 
fiscatory. 

If  the  farmers  are  right,  then  our 
proposed  reclamation  system  is  all 
wrong  and  we  might  as  well  abandon 
it.  But  the  representatives  of  the 
farmers  in  various  mass  meetings 
have  asserted  that  the  flood  control 
plan  is  right. 

The  engineers  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment declare  it  is  right.  The  en- 
gineers of  the  State  reclamation 
service  say  it  is  right,  and  that  it 
will  help  and  not  hurt  the  farmers. 

And  there  you  are. 


(Sacramento   Union,  March   12,  1915.) 

By-Pass  Plan  a  State  Matter 


While  on  its  surface  the  contro- 
versy between  the  promoters  of  the 
Sutter  Basin  reclamation  project  and 
the  Sutter  County  farmers  is  appar- 


ently a  local  matter,  the  fate  of  the 
entire  flood  control  system  of  the 
Sacramento  Valley  is  involved  in  its 
settlement. 


A  repudiation  of  the  plan  adopted 
by  the  State  of  California  after  years 
of  study  would  practically  mean  the 
abandonment  of  the  entire  by-pass 
system. 

The  problem  of  the  control  of  the 
flood  waters  of  the  Sacramento  Val- 
ley has  been  under  consideration  by 
the  engineers  of  the  United  States 
and  the  State  of  California  for  more 
than  thirty  years. 

After  the  study  of  the  question  by 
three  boards  of  engineers,  the  report 
of  the  California  Debris  Commission 
finally  outlined  a  system  of  weirs 
and  by-passes  to  carry  off  the  flood 
waters  which  exceed  the  flow  of  the 
river  five  times. 

The  special  session  of  the  Legis- 
lature called  by  Governor  Johnson 
in  1911  provided  for  the  Reclamation 
Board,  into  the  hands  of  which  the 
entire  problem  of  reclamation  was 
given. 

Under  the  authorization  of  the  law 
and  by  the  direct  action  of  the  State 
Reclamation  Board  and  its  engi- 
neers, the  lines  of  the  proposed  sys- 
tem were  located. 

These  lines  were  fixed  without 
reference  to  the  ownership  of  any 
part  of  the  land.  They  were  laid  out 
along  the  contours  which  the  engi- 
neers after  the  completion  of  their 
surveys  decided  would  best  serve  the 
purpose  of  conducting  the  flood 
waters  to  the  bay. 

Their  only  aim  was  to  protect  the 
river  and  provide  a  way  for  the  safe 
and  scientific  reclamation  of  the 
largest  possible  area  of  land. 

All  the  claims  and  assertions  of 
the  present  opponents  of  the  flood 
control  system,  even  to  the  objec- 
tions to  the  specific  location  of  the 
by-pass,  were  presented  to  the  Recla- 
mation Board,  but  in  spite  of  all 
arguments  that  body  approved  the 
plan  of  its  engineers. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that 
according  to  the  testimony  of  the 


men  who  fixed  the  location  of  the 
proposed  by-pass,  engineering  con- 
sideration alone  dictated  the  line  of 
the  drainage  channel. 

If  the  local  court  of  Sutter  County 
or  Sutter  County  itself  has  the  power 
to  put  an  end  to  the  construction  of 
the  by-pass  along  the  route  chosen 
by  the  State  engineers  and  approved 
by  the  State  Reclamation  Board, 
what  assurance  is  there  that  some 
other  court  in  some  other  county 
may  not  take  the  same  action  in 
reference  to  some  other  part  of  the 
system? 

This  system  cannot  be  a  thing  of 
shreds  and  patches.  It  must  be  con- 
structed as  one  big  system.  Each 
fragment  is  dependent  on  every  other 
portion. 

The  aim  of  the  engineers  is  not  to 
reclaim  this  or  that  parcel  of  land, 
but  to  provide  a  method  of  carrying 
the  surplus  waters  with  the  least 
possible  damage  to  an  outlet  at  the 
bay. 

The  question  of  the  ownership  of 
the  land  on  either  side  of  the  by- 
pass is  not  involved.  To  the  State  of 
California  it  makes  no  difference  who 
owns  all  or  any  of  it. 

We  as  a  State  are  concerned  with 
the  problem  of  flood  control  and  the 
broad  question  of  reclamation. 

If  we  are  not  to  carry  out  the  sys- 
tem of  flood  control  designed  after 
years  of  study,  we  might  just  as  well 
drop  the  matter  and  permit  the  in- 
dividual land  owners  to  continue  the 
senseless  system  of  building  against 
each  other  and  fighting  through  the 
courts  the  thousand  and  one  ques- 
tions that  arise. 

The  legislators  either  should  clear 
the  way  so  that  the  State  can  pro- 
ceed along  the  line  mapped  out  by 
its  engineers  and  commissioners  or 
we  might  as  well  abandon  the  by- 
pass plan  and  consign  the  Reclama  • 
tion  Board  to  the  junk  pile. 


(Sacramento  Bee,  February  25,  1915.) 


Fighting  Each  Other  While 

the  Floods  Overwhelm  All 


The  losses  created  by  the  floods 
of  this  month  in  the  Colusa  Basin 
and  the  Knights  Landing  Ridge  Dis- 
trict have  been  great;  but  the  injury 
has  been  so  widespread,  affecting  so 
many  districts  and  individuals,  that 
the  warring  reclamation  owners  may 
recognize  the  absolute  futility  of  in- 
dependent protective  efforts  and 
unite  to  secure  the  speedy  comple- 
tion of  the  only  plan  which  spells 
safety  for  all.  In  that  event  the 
floods,  notwithstanding  the  imme- 
diate damage,  will  have  proved  of 
actual  benefit. 


As  it  is,  District  108  has  26,000  acres 
of  seeded  land  destroyed,  so  far  as 
concerns  this  year's'  crop,  an  actual 
loss  of  $5  per  acre ;  District  730  has 
been  flooded,  with  great  damage ; 
private  holdings  about  the  Ridge  are 
under  water,  as  are  portions  of  the 
town  itself. 

+  None  of  these  things  would 
+  have  happened  had  the  Knights 
^  Landing  cut  been  in  operation. 
*  That  cut  would  have  been  com- 
<>  pleted  and  affording  relief  to- 
^  day,  but  for  the  opposition  and 
^  litigation  of  reclamation  land- 
4*  owners,  many  of  whom  are  al- 
+  ready  suffering  loss  in  conse-  + 
^  quence  of  the  delay. 


Similar  conditions  exist  in  the  Sut- 
ter  Basin.  The  Reclamation  Board 
approved  the  plans  of  District  1500, 
with  the  reservation  that  its  levees 
must  not  be  closed  for  two  seasons, 
thus  allowing  time  for  owners  and 
districts  on  the  east  and  north  basin 
to  co-operate  and  secure  similar  pro- 
tection for  their  own  property.  Many 
of  them  preferred,  instead,  to  oppose 
the  entire  flood  control  project  and 


prevent  or  delay  its  completion.  It  is 
not  unlikely  that  they  also  will  find 
themselves  the  sufferers  by  their 
action. 

District  1600,  extending  along  the 
Sacramento  River  from  the  mouth  of 
the  Feather  to  a  point  south  of  the 
Elkhorn  weir,  was  granted  permis- 
sion by  the  Reclamation  Board  to 
complete  its  levee  system  provided 
the  levees  were  not  closed  for  two 
seasons.  This  was  intended  to 
allow  time  for  Sacramento  City  and 
others  interested  to  construct  the 
Sacramento  by-pass  and  secure  re- 
lief thereby  for  flood  waters,  prior 
to  the  closing  by  District  1600  of 
openings  at  Elkhorn  weir,  Butchers 
Break  and  elsewhere  on  the  Sacra- 
mento. 

Sacramento  City  thus  far  has 
failed  to  take  advantage  of  the  op- 
portunity offered.  Unless  her  Com- 
mission completes  before  December, 
1915,  the  Sacramento  weir,  the  city 
must  face  next  Winter  the  menace 
not  only  of  the  American  River 
floods,  but  also  of  those  from  the 
Sacramento  and  Feather  Rivers,  un- 
relieved by  any  breaks  north  of  her. 


It  would  seem,  with  object  lessons 
of  this  kind,  and  the  positive  assur- 
ance from  the  Government  engineers 
and  all  other  competent  authority 
familiar  with  the  matter,  that  only 
the  flood  control  project  can  control 
the  river  and  save  the  valley,  the 
warring  reclamation  land  owners 
would  come  to  their  senses.  They 
can  now  either  continue  to  fight 
until  they  are  all  submerged,  or  unite 
to  hasten  the  construction  of  the 
one  life-raft  that  can  carry  them  to 
safety.  They  may  not  like  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Reclamation  Board,  and 
they  may  disagree  with  some  details 
of  the  engineers'  plans;  but  to  seek, 
for  a  reason  of  this  kind,  the  defeat 
of  the  entire  project,  is  suicidal. 


(Sacramento  Bee,  March  6,  1915.) 


Misapprehension  Regarding  the  Sutter  Basin  By-Pass 


A  large  mass  meeting  of  citizens 
of  Yuba  and  Sutter  Counties  was 
held  at  Marysville  yesterday  after- 
noon, at  which  resolutions  were 
adopted  in  opposition  to  the  Sutter 
Basin  by-pass,  as  now  located.  A 
full  report  of  the  proceedings  ap- 
pears in  The  Bee's  news  columns 
to-day. 

A  circular  announcement  of  the 
meeting,  issued  by  a  joint  commit- 
tee of  Sutter  and  Yuba  taxpayers, 
declared  the  by-pass,  as  now  located, 

will  not  only  mean  ruin  to  thou- 
sands of  their  citizens  engaged  in 
agricultural  and  mercantile  pur- 
suits, but  will  prove  to  be  a  work 
of  monumental  folly  which  would 
ever  be  a  dangerous  menace  to  the 
entire  Sacramento  Valley. 


Either  the  Federal,  State  or  other 
competent  engineers  do  not  know 
their  business,  or  some  of  the  people 
in  those  two  counties  are  unneces- 
sarily disturbed. 

It  is  explained  that  all  lands  in 
and  adjoining  the  Sutter  Basin  will 
be  fully  protected  on  completion  of 
the  flood  control  project  as  outlined. 

The  closing  of  District  1500's 
levees  was  delayed  two  years  to  al- 
low of  co-operation  of  other  parts 
of  the  Basin.  Naturally,  if  some  in- 
sist on  blocking  the  work,  there  will 
be  temporary  danger  to  unprotected 
lands.  The  same  thing  occurs  on 
the  river  when  one  district  builds 


strong  levees  and  its  neighbors  fail 
to  do  so. 

The  Sutter  people  say  they  favor 
the  central  location  of  the  by-pass. 
The  engineers  explain  that  the  cen- 
tral location  by-pass,  when  com- 
pleted, would  accomplish  no  more  in 
protection  of  various  districts  than 
the  eastern  one,  and  has  various 
disadvantages. 

The  central  location  raises  the 
flood  plane,  too,  though  not  as  much 
as  the  eastern,  and  the  same  dan- 
gers would  be  created  in  building 
the  west  levees  on  the  central  loca- 
tion, if  owners  declined  to  permit 
construction  of  the  east  levees 
thereof. 

The  official  statements  of  the 
Sutter  County  people  certainly  con- 
tain a  number  of  errors  as  to  facts. 
It  would  appear  wise  to  learn  first 
those  facts,  and  then  co-operate  in 
completion  of  the  plan  which  will 
protect  them. 

As  The  Bee  understand  it,  even 
the  Sutter  County  engineers  do  not 
assert  that  the  complete  project  as 
approved  by  the  Reclamation  Board 
will  not  protect  all  lands,  including 
those  of  the  protestants. 

They  object  to  a  part  of  the  pro- 
ject being  carried  out  by  District 
1500,  but  have  thus  far  refused  or 
failed  to  co-operate  in  carrying  out 
portions  which  would  insure  protec- 
tion to  themselves. 


(Sacramento  Star,  March  2,  1915.) 

The  Sutter  Basin  Project 


The  Star  offers  no  apology  for 
favoring  the  early  completion  of  the 
great  Sutter  Basin  drainage  project. 
In  common  with  all  other  concerns 
in  this  city,  who  have  the  good  of 
Sacramento  at  heart,  The  Star  wants 
to  see  Sacramento  a  city  of  250,000 
prosperous  and  busy  people  and 


three  times  as  many  busy  and  pros- 
perous people  upon  the  farms  and 
in  the  villages  and  towns  of  North- 
ern California  tributary  to  Sacra- 
mento. 

With  a  soil  not  excelled  by  that  of 
any  other  region  in  the  world ;  with 
a  climate  surpassing  that  of  every 


other  part  of  the  world  so  far  as  the 
purposes  of  productivity  are  con- 
cerned; with  transportation  facilities 
almost  unbelievable  and  with  oppor- 
tunities for  growth  such  as  are  pos- 
sessed by  scarcely  any  other  country 
in  the  world,  Northern  California 
still  lingers  in  the  forward  proces- 
sion. 

True,  the  assessed  valuation  of 
Sutter  County  has  shown  an  increase 
of  nearly  100  per  cent  in  ten  years 
and  Sacramento  County  has  also 
shown  a  large  increase  in  values,  but 
after  all  there  is  not  a  man  or  woman 
of  intelligence  in  Northern  Califor- 
nia who  does  not  know  that  this 
region  ought  to  have  ten  families 
where  now  we  have  one. 

Reclamation  of  the  overflowed 
lands  of  Sacramento  River  will  do 
much  to  bring  about  this  condition 
so  greatly  to  be  desired,  and  of  the 
projects  now  under  way  or  being- 
considered  that  of  Sutter  Basin  ap- 
pears to  be  one  of  the  most  favorably 
conditioned. 

The  great  fault  of  the  Wright  irri- 
gation law  was  not  in  the  plan  at 
all,  but  merely  in  the  administration 
of  the  districts.  Bonds  were  peddled 


at  high  interest  and  heavy  discounts 
and  all  sorts  of  offers  were  made  for 
money  to  carry  on  the  work.  In 
most  cases  the  districts  simply  fell 
down  for  lack  of  capital  and  intelli- 
gent administration.  No  such  handi- 
cap operates  against  Sutter  Basin. 
Here  we  have  the  very  highest  form 
of  management,  engineers,  the  best 
procurable,  practically  no  manage- 
ment expense,  a  minimum  of  over- 
head expense,  and  no  promotion.  No  _ 
stock  for  sale  and  no  bids  for  money. 
As  George  Peltier  explained  in  his 
river  speech  the  other  day,  he  has 
plenty  of  money  to  carry  the  project 
to  success,  although  it  will  require 
several  millions  more  to  be  spent  in 
this  immediate  region  for  labor  alone 
— but  Sutter  Basin  wants  merely  the 
moral  support  of  the  people  of  Sac- 
ramento and  adjoining  counties. 

It  is  but  the  first  unit  in  that  grand 
comprehensive  scheme  outlined  in 
the  Jackson  plan  by  which  1,000,000 
acres  of  swamp  and  overflow  lands, 
lying  in  the  Sacramento  River  basin, 
will  ultimately  be  reclaimed,  and  in- 
stead of  being  a  vast  game  preserve 
will  be  made  over  into  homes  for  the 
people  upon  the  soil. 


(Sacramento    Star,   March    12,   1915.) 

The  Sutter  Basin  Project 


As  usual,  when  a  bitter  controversy 
is  engenderd,  the  real  issue  is  lost 
sight  of  in  the  Sutter  Basin  by-pass 
matter  now  before  the  California 
Legislature. 

The  proposition  which  the  Legis- 
lature will  have  to  decide  within  the 
next  few  days  is  not  whether  or  not, 
a  certain  project  known  as  the  Sutter 
Basin,  or  Reclamation  District  1500 
project,  shall  be  permitted  to  com- 
plete certain  levees  and  canal — not 
that  at  all. 

The  proposition  is  simply  whether 
the  authority  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, in  relation  to  the  reclamation 
of  the  swamp  lands  of  the  Sacra- 
mento RiVer  V'^KjNjr  s*havll  be  sus:- 
tained  or  not. 

The  protesting  Sutter  County^  land 
owners  insist  that  their  -f!g*ht  is 
wholly  with  the  so-called  "Armour- 
Gerber  project,"  but  such  is  not  the 
case.  The  Star  makes  no  charge  of 
disingenuousness  against  its  many 
friends  in  Sutter  County  and  else- 
where in  Northern  California.  The 
men  who  are  fighting  this  particular 
plan  at  this  particular  time  are  airi- 

Ne>ws  Print 


]  questionably  not  only  honest,  but 
patriotic  citizens  as  exist  anywhere 
in  the  State  of  California,  but  the 
trouble  seems  to  be  that  they  have 
not  yet  grasped  the  big,  broad  ideal 
of  flood  control  as  a  State-wide 
proposition. 

The  State-wide  control,  is,  how- 
ever, just  as  inevitable  as  the  tides. 
Nothing,  humanly  speaking,  can  pos- 
sibly prevent  it.  As  well  try  to  stem! 
the  mighty  Sacramento  in  flood  byi 
building  a  dirt  dam  across  the  river 
at  Sacramento.  As  well  try  Prof. 
Zueblin's  plan  of  turning  the  Amer-j 
ican  by  levees  ! 

The  separate  boards  of  engineers] 
of  Nation-wide  reputation,  the  Cali-j 
fprnia  Debris  Commission  and  the 
State  Board  of  Reclamation  have  all 
recommended  this  by-pass  plan  after 
mature  and  careful  study  of  the 
whole  problem.  The  lines  of  the  pro- 
posed by-passes  have  been  fixed! 
without  reference  to  the  ownership 
of  land,  and  The  Star  cannot  under- 
stand what  possible  interest  will  bel 
served  ultimately  by  defeating  the} 
plan  at  this  time. 

Sacramento 


YCi 07658 


3932GO 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 


